United States v. Musgrove

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Nos. 96-40220, 96-40221, 96-40223
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM LEE MUSGROVE,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:93-CR-72-1
USDC No. 4:93-CR-76-1
USDC No. 4:93-CR-75
- - - - - - - - - -
February 20, 1997
Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
William Lee Musgrove was convicted, after entering a guilty
plea, of two counts of possession with intent to distribute
marijuana and one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute marijuana. Musgrove’s father, William A. Musgrove,
purporting to act pursuant to a power of attorney, filed the
present notice of appeal on Musgrove’s behalf from an order
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-40220
No. 96-40221
No. 96-40223
- 2 -
denying the “Affidavit of Fact” and “Judicial Writ of Habeas
Corpus” filed in the district court.
This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its
own motion if necessary. United States v. Lister, 53 F.3d 66, 68
(5th Cir. 1995). A notice of appeal filed by a person who is not
an attorney is ineffective to initiate an appeal as to any person
who did not sign the notice. Smith v. White, 857 F.2d 1042, 1043
(5th Cir. 1988). See also Carter v. Stalder, 60 F.3d 238, 239
(5th Cir. 1995) (citing Mikeska v. Collins, 928 F.2d 126 (5th
Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (opinion on rehearing)). Rule 3(c),
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, does not permit Musgrove’s
father to file a notice of appeal on Musgrove’s behalf because
Musgrove’s father is not a party to the case. Moreover, a power
of attorney does not authorize a non-attorney to file legal
documents on the behalf of others. Weber v. Garza, 570 F.2d 511,
513-14 (5th Cir. 1978). Accordingly, the notice of appeal is
ineffective to confer appellate jurisdiction, and the appeal is
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED.